The Ideal War

Let’s say you invested heavily in Halliburton, or
were someone like Cheney who gets residuals from Halliburton based on its profitability,
or a Repubilcan politician (e.g. McCain) who gets large amounts of contributions/cash
from Halliburton (a major military contractor), perhaps indirectly or under the table.

What would be your idea of an idea war?

The war must never end. If it ends, the profits trail off. Granted, you can start
another war, but that causes an interruption in the flow cash from the taxpayers.

The war must be steady. It must neither drastically escalate or deescalate. You
want a stable war that drifts into the background of public consciousness. You want
them to pay for it and be largely unaware of it. Sudden changes make people start
looking at the expenditures.

You don’t want large numbers of American causalities. These tend to make
people want to get out of wars. So pick on an enemy that can’t fight back, that
has no military at all.

You want an enemy that generates little sympathy. Even children and grandmothers
killed should not bother the average American conscience. Play on religious prejudice,
racism and xenophobia to carefully select a foe. Non-white, non-Christian victims are
clearly preferable. The less the public know about the foe, the easier to demonise
them.

The war must be expensive, gradually increasing in expense, but not so quickly as
to trigger a backlash.

The war must be safe. The enemy must have no means to attack the continental USA or
the factories of the defence industry.

Ideally the climate should be pleasant to help attract young men who want a little
adventure. Good lighting also helps the photography to sell the war. A war in the
arctic over oil would be hard to sell to the average submoron enlistee.

Do you notice how closely the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq come to the ideal?